(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "St. Petersburg waterfront plan"



C-l 



ST. PETERSBURG 
WATERFRONT PLAN 



p«>*»*f^"*%. 




-'***'>N\AL 






OF ;5 I 



ST. PETERSBURG 
WATERFRONT PLAN 



CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 
DEPARTMENT OF LEISURE SERVICES 



MARCH, 1980 



INTRODUCTION 



The waterfront is St. Petersburg's most beautiful and important 
natural asset. In order to maintain its aesthetic quality and yet 
provide greater recreational and cultural opportunities for the 
citizens of St. Petersburg, the City Council authorized the devel- 
opment of a comprehensive Waterfront Plan as a supplement to the 
Intown Design and Development Program ." 

The Waterfront Plan covers an area of 340 acres on Tampa Bay, 
extending from 30th Avenue North to 11th Avenue South, including 
the Airport and Port area. The study area contains almost eight 
miles of shoreline and represents an existing public investment of 
over $70.4 million.** 

Development of the Waterfront Plan involves : 

1) Finding out the existing characteristics of the area in terms 
of land uses and densities, ownership patterns, visual and 
natural assets and traffic patterns. 

2) Considering the relationships between the different water- 
front components, such as the marina, Pier and open space. 

3) Identifying what the plan should accomplish. 

4) Developing alternative plans that meet the objectives. 

5) Seeking public comment. 

6) Selecting and refining a plan based on public comment. 

7) Adopting the approved plan and carrying out its development 
in a phased program. 



\A/ATERFRONT PARK PROGRAM 



PUBLIC MEETINGS 
•oowNTovN c»ours 

• HCMMVOMMOOO »»OUH 

• DAMNUM COMtrSSMN 

• ^iCRT«i« FO»Ct 

• SPtClAU mrtHEST ttlWn 



-4 



H 



PLAN 
MODIFICATION 
AM) ADOPTION 



-* 



FUNOINC AND 
MANAGEMENT 
SYSTEM DETAIL 



OCTAILEO 

HPLEHCNTATION 

PROGAAM 

AND PHASING 



Intown Design and Development Program , developed by Community 
Development Department, City of St. Petersburg and adopted by 
City Council Resolution, June 1979. 



Replacement cost of waterfront public facilities in 1979 
dollars. 




EXISTING 
WATERFRONT 



1 BAYBORO PARK 

2 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA EXPANSION/MARINE INSTITUTE 

3 PORT OF ST. PETERSBURG 

4 ALBERT WHITTED AIRPORT 

5 BAYFRONT ENTERTAINMENT CENTER 

6 BAYFRONT CONCOURSE HOTEL 

7 AL LANG BASEBALL FIELD 

8 DEMEN'S LANDING PARK & MUNICIPAL MARINA 

9 PIONEER PARK 

10 TRANSPORTATION CENTER AND OFFICE COMPLEX (PROPOSED) 
n DETROIT BLOCK REDEVELOPMENT AREA (PROPOSED) 

12 WILLIAMS PARK 

13 MASS BROTHERS DEPARTMENT STORE 

14 CONCORD BLOCK REDEVELOPMENT AREA (PROPOSED) 

15 STRAUB PARK 




16 THE PLAZA OFFICE AND SHOPPING COMPLEX 

17 MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS 

18 BOUNTY EXHIBIT 

19 SPA BEACH 

20 PIER PLACE 

21 VINOY HOTEL REDEVELOPMENT AREA (PROPOSED) 

22 VINOY PARK 

23 EDGEWATER HOTEL 

24 NORTH SHORE RECREATION CENTER 

25 GIZELLA KOPSICK PALM ARBORETUM 

26 NORTH SHORE BEACH 

27 FLORA WYLIE PARK 

28 COFFEE POT BAYOU PROMENADE 

29 COFFEE POT BAYOU PARK 



ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES 



The Waterfront planning process involves both defining and resolv- 
ing significant issues regarding the development of the waterfront 
as well as its management. The following is a list of some of the 
significant waterfront planning issues identified in the Plan. 



What level of development intensity is desirable for the 
waterfront? 

How will the development of the waterfront relate to and 
impact downtown development and redevelopment? 
How can adequate, convenient and aesthetically compatible 
parking be provided for all waterfront activities? 
Is the Edgewater Motel an appropriate use for the water- 
front? 

Is the development of a major attraction(s) desirable on the 
waterfront? If so, what type(s)? 

What is the best management alternative for operating the 
waterfront? 

Which financial alternative will provide the best source(s) 
for development and operation of the waterfront? 



In selecting alternative Pier area development, financial and 
management options, a set of objectives must be developed in order 
to evaluate which options are best. The Pier Area Plan Alterna- 
tives A and B were the two alternatives which ranked highest on 
City Council objectives. Some of the key objectives which the 
plan will achieve are: 



• Maximize visual assets. 

• Enhance access to beaches and water. 

• Provide convenient remote parking. 

• Emphasize a pedestrian oriented system within functional 
areas . 

• Promote use of mass transit systems within the park system. 

• New development should be supportive and concentrated. 



The following represents the alternatives for Pier Area develop- 
ment. 



ALTERNATIVE A SKETCHES 




View of Event Plaza, location for special outdoor activities. The ethnic food pavilion 
is located on the left and views to Tampa Bay, the Pier, the water stage and the Marine 
Sciences Building lie in the distance. 



■ »'\.f^'f ... 







View of Waterside Arcade, a landscaped two story specialty shop and restaurant area. 
The Plaza office complex and historic ships can be seen in the distance. 



ALTERNATIVE A 



MARIh; 



The Pier Area Alternative A divides the area into three sections 
for the purpose of financing its implementation. The private 
sector portion is retail oriented and includes a waterside arcade 
with specialty shops and restaurants, an ethnic food and beverage 
pavilion and maritime museums including two new historic ships. 
The non-profit corporation area is more educational in nature with 
a marine science building, an exhibition hall for art and science 
exhibits, and a water stage/amphitheater for outdoor concerts or 
special events. The City developed por- 
tion of the waterfront is recreational in 
orientation with expansion of Spa Beach, 
a tram system, landscaping of the Pier 
approach, a water play fountain and up- 
grading of the Pier and surrounding 
shops. All three participants in the 
development of the Pier area will provide 
uniform lighting, signage, furniture, 
landscaping and boardwalks. All land area 
will be retained in City ownership. 




PIER APPROACH PROMENADE 



SCIENCE BUILDING 

EXHIBIT BUILDING 



TRAM STOP 

INFORMATION 




MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS 



FIIMANCIIMG DISTRICTS 



PLAY FOUNTAIN 



SCALE : Y' = SOO' 



^ 




ALTERNATIVE B 



The Pier Area Alternative B will be predominately financed and 
developed by the City. It would involve a combination of cultural 
and recreational activities. The activities include some small 
shops and restaurants, expansion of Spa Beach, boardwalks, exhibit 
space, open special event area, landscaping along The Pier 
approach, the addition of an amphitheater adjacent to the Fine 
Arts Museum and uniform signage, lighting and furniture. 



THE WATERSIDE COURTYARD 







8 



CENTRAL YACHT BASIN MUNICIPAL MARINA 



TRAM STOP 



MUSEUM OF 
FINE ARTS 






.•.*1V-^ 










WATER STAGE 

AND AMPHITHEATER 



PUBLIC INFORMATION 



SPA BEACH PARK AND CONCESSION 



SCALE: Y'=SOO 



^ 




ALTERNATIVE B SKETCHES 




4 ^t^' 




,^' 



View of Event Plaza, location for special outdoor activities with the event tent on the 
left. The Waterside Courtyard, a small shopping restaurant area is to the right and 
views to Tampa Bay and the Pier lie in the distance. 







View of the Pier approach promenade with widened sidewalks, planters and raised seating 
areas. 



10 



PARKING OPTIONS 



In recognizing City Council's objective of providing convenient 
remote parking for waterfront development, nine Intown sites were 
analyzed. The parking demand for the Alternative A is between 
2000-2400 parking spaces. The parking sites chosen have to be 
easily accessible by automobile and yet have a large parking 
capacity without building a massive parking structure. The two 
sites which ranked highest in the evaluation of parking sites are 
the Bayfront Center and the block on the southwest corner of First 
Street and Fifth Avenue South. There are legal restrictions on 
the use of portions of the Bayfront Center parking lot for a 
parking structure; however, if the legal problem can be resolved 
it is one of the more appropriate parking structure sites. 

The Alternative B plan will have on-site parking. 



FINANCING OPTIONS 



The estimated cost of the Pier Area Alternative A is over $31 
million of which the City's share is $3.3 million, the private 
sector share is $18.4 million and non-profit corporation share is 
$9.5 million. Alternative B will cost the City over $10.7 million 
dollars. These figures are based on current prices and do not 
include inflation nor the cost of the parking and transit systems. 

The City share of waterfront development (Alternatives A and B) 
could be financed by either one or a combination of the following: 

• Waterfront Revenue Certificate - This issue is supported by 
the revenues minus operating expenses of the central yacht 
basin. Such an issue could support interest payments on a 
$1.5-$1.8 million certificate issue. 

• General Obligation Bond - This type of bond issue would be 
financed by-^ property taxes. The current City bonding capa- 
city is over $300 million; however, voter approval is re- 
quired. 

• Tax Increment Financing - This financing mechanism uses the 
increased property tax revenue, within a defined district, 
generated by public improvements and associated new develop- 
ment to pay for those improvements directly or pay interest 
on a bond issue. This financing mechanism would not be used 
to fund the Alternative B development concept. The legality 
of tax increment financing has not yet been determined by 
the Florida State Court. 



11 



• Federal/State Open Space Grants - Monies are available for 
improvements depending upon grant criteria relative to 
actual waterfront development plans. 

A Non-Prof it corporation can finance development by: 

• An endowment from a philanthropic organization. 

• Endowments from groups of private individuals or local 
organizations . 

• Fund raising in conjunction with an endowment program. 

• Federal/State Grants. 



A private developer can arrange his own financing; however, the 
land area designated for private development would be leased to a 
private commercial developer or concessioneer on a long term 
basis. 

A parking structure development can be financed either by: 

• Obtaining commercial leases prior to issuing a tax exempt 
revenue bond. 

• Issuing a revenue bond which will be retired by the commer- 
cial lease itself. 

• Tax increment financing, if allowed by State law, could be 
used for parking structure financing. 

• Federal grants are available. 

Transit system development can be financed through an Urban Mass 
Transportation Administration grant. 



12 



MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 



Pl8 
n Atlla.5 



The management of the entire waterfront is related to four fac- 
tors; legal relationship of the management orga^iization to City 
Council, taxing authority, bonding authority and policy and admin- 
istrative decision authority. 



The four management alternatives are: 

• Waterfront Park Authority - has its own operational and 
administrative authority, as well as taxing and bonding 
authority. 

• Waterfront Non-Profit Corporation - operational and adminis- 
trative decisions are defined by management contract with 
the City, and has no bonding or taxing authority. 

• Waterfront Park Board - operational and administrative 
decision authority is delegated by City Council, and has no 
bonding or taxing authority. 

• Waterfront Advisory Commission - only an advisory board, and 
no taxing or bonding authority. 



Characteristics of each management alternative include: 



Waterfront 

Waterfront Public Waterfront Waterfront 

Park Non-Profit Park Advisory 

Authority Corporation Board Commission 



Planning Function 
Surveys, information gathering, approval 
Capital Improvement Program, approval 



Proposal for Grants, approval 


X 


X 


Accept gifts, donations, and subsidies 


X 


X 


Development Review 


X 


X 


Implementation Function 






Procedure Manuals, approval 


X 


X 


Annual Operating Budget, approval 






Capital Improvement Prgram, approval 






Expenditure of Capital Improvement, approval 


X 


>X 


Detail Plan, approval 


X 


X 


Award of Contract, approval 


X 


X 


Real Estate - Acquisition 


X 


X 


- Disposition 


X 


X 


- Rent/Lease 


X 


X 


Proposal for Grants, approval 


X 


X 


Accept gifts, donations, and subsidies 


X 


X 


Sue and be sued 


X 


X 


Development Review 


X 


X 



13 






Waterfront 

Waterfront Public Waterfront Waterfront 

Park Non-Profit Park Advisory 

Authority Corporation Board Coauiission 



Operational Function 
Authority to sign checks, delegations 
Adainistrative Regulations, approval 
Procedures Manual, approval 
Annual Operating Budget, approval 
Purchase Requisition, approval 
Requests for Payment, approval 
Payroll, approval 
Insurance/Property, approval 
Award of Contract, approval 
Real Estate - Acquisition 

- Disposition 

- Rent/Lease 
Proposal for Grants, approval 
Personnel Functions 

Accept gifts, donations, and subsidies 
Sue and be sued 



SUMMARY 



The alternatives for development of the Pier represent varying 
intensities and ranges of recreational, commercial and cultural 
activities. It is important to note no matter which Pier Alterna- 
tive is implemented the waterfront will maintain its openess and 
continue to provide a variety of recreational activities for all 
residents of St. Petersburg and visitors. 

Working together will be instrumental in making the planning 
process for the waterfront a comprehensive and workable guide for 
its future development. 



I 



14 



ST. PETERSBURG CITY COUNCIL 

CORINNE FREEMAN, MAYOR 

J. W. GATE, JR. 
PETER A. ENGLAND 
BETTY FINLEY 
CHARLES L. FISHER 
RICHARD MARTIN 
SALLY WALLACE 



INTERIM CITY MANAGER 



ROBERT D. OBERING 



CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 
DEPARTMENT OF LEISURE SERVICES 



MARCH 1980 



STAFF 



BRUCE HAHL, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 

RICK DODGE, LEISURE SERVICES DIRECTOR 

JOHN HABGOOD, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 

STEVE WOLOCHOWICZ, CHIEF OF DESIGN AND SPECIAL STUDIES 

DAVID WERTEL, CHIEF OF ECONOMIC PLANNING 

JAN NORSOPH, PLANNER III 

LEN BUFFINGTON, PLANNER II 

ED HAMM, PLANNER II 

LORENZO McDOUGLE, PLANNING TECHNICIAN 

SANDI McGHAN, PLANNING TECHNICIAN 



3 IXb;L 058 2.33353